Why is the Federal Vision Heresy?
November 30, 2006 at 12:53 pm (Church, Federal Vision, Heresy)
This post inevitably will condense some discussion that might be better expanded. It has been expanded elsewhere, as in The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, which is the single best resource on the whole issue, since you can see the theology in actual debate. What I am going to do here is list some reasons why the Federal Vision is heretical, and utterly to be abhorred. It should be noted that not all FV advocates hold to all these points. It is not a monolithic movement. Therefore, some of these points will apply to some and not to others. However, all of these points are held by some FV proponent or other.
- The first reason why the FV is heretical is that it makes no ontological differentiation in the church between those who are hypocrites and those who are saved. FV advocates will make claims that look like this: “the only difference between hypocrites and non-hypocrites is that the non-hypocrites will persevere.” This is clear from some of Steve Wilkins’s statements: “Because being in covenant with God means being in Christ, those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Union with Christ means that all that is true of Christ is true of us.” Now, by itself, this statement is not really objectionable. However, the way in which he connects this with “covenantal election” is highly problematic: “The elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject the Savior, they are no longer elect- they are cut off from the Elect One and thus, lose their elect standing. But their falling away doesn’t negate the reality of their standing prior to their apostasy. They were really and truly the elect of God because of their relationship with Christ.” Both quotes taken from Federal Vision, pg. 58. He is using “election” here in the covenantal sense of being elected to the covenant. FV proponents will claim that this use of the term in no way contradicts the decretal use of the term as used in the WCF, for instance. However, there is no doubt that Steve Wilkins, for one, is claiming real salvific benefits of being united to Christ for people who will eventually apostatize. In fact, he lists on page 59 all the saving benefits that future apostates have as long as they are united to Christ in covenant. What FV proponents have done is to develop a new set of terms that describe saving benefits of being united to Christ by covenant. These benefits, however, include benefits that are normally described as being part of the ordo salutis. Wilkins includes sanctification, sharing in the righteousness of Christ (meaning justification, as is clarified later on down the page), and redemption. He makes his position even clearer on page 61, where he says this: “Thus, when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, forgiveness, and salvation.” Here is what the WCF says: “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” The decretal sense of election is here in view in the WCF, and it explicitly says that they *only* receive any saving benefits. What the FV has to do is invent a whole new vocabulary for every saving benefit so that there are two justifications, two sanctifications, two elections, two redemptions, one covenantal and one decretal. However, they inevitably confuse the one set of terms with the other, and have not distinguished at all the two different senses of justification, sanctification, redemption, etc.
- The FV denies the distinction between the visible and invisible church. Admittedly, they have John Murray for a precedent here. So much the worse for John Murray. This distinction between visible and invisible is confessional, and, more importantly, Scriptural. I have no wish to deny that many Scriptures speak of the church as visible as being the church. Such passages are utterly and completely irrelevant as to whether the Scripture also speaks of the church as invisible. Acts 2:41, Galatians 2:4, 1 John 2:19, Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6, John 10:26-27 do abundantly prove that, in addition to the definition of church as including both the elect and the reprobate, there is another definition of “church” that means only the elect. Let me repeat carefully the argument, because many will quote at me passages that prove that the church consists of anyone who is baptized. I freely admit that that is one definition of the word “church.” But that is not the only way the word is used, or, more precisely, the idea. The passages cited above prove that there is another way of speaking about church that is simply in terms of the eternally elect who will never fall away. The historical considerations are vitally important here, by the way. The Roman Catholic Church accused the Reformers of not having a church for the many centuries before the Reformation. What was the Reformers’ answer? The visible/invisible church distinction. We cannot define the church solely in terms of what is visible, or else we have no leg upon which to stand, for the Reformers did not claim continuity with Medieval Catholicism, but with the early church. How is it that they are the true church? Because they have always been the true invisible church, though they were not always visible as the church. You get rid of the visible/invisible church distinction, then you cut the leg out from under the entire Reformation. I am indebted to Wes White for these arguments. I will post more later on the reasons why the FV is heretical. This is a start.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:12 pm
But does the Bible only attribute sanctificaation to the eternally elect, or is there a broader, biblical use of the term?
Hebrews 10:29: “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Even more alarming to me than this is the denial of the covenant of works (Monocovenatalism). Through their rejection of this covenant with Adam, it negates the active obedience of Christ (the second Adam) to fulfill the law and satisfy the justice of God on behalf of the sinner. This is a direct attack on the person and work of Christ Himself.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Yes, David. I will post more on that later.
Todd, I just love the way you lose the forest for the trees. You pick a teeny detail of my argument to pounce on, and then think you’ve refuted the whole thing. I’d be willing to wager any amount of money that you have not even looked up the passages I cited in favor of the invisible church definition, though being absolutely essential in the argument. To use one of your favorite terms, you are on the wrong level of discourse.
But to answer what you said, the Bible does use the term “sanctify” in various ways. However, the FV *never* qualifies which sense of justification, sanctification, union with Christ, etc. they mean when they say that all the benefits of union with Christ accrue to the believer. They don’t say “covenantal justification” when they say “covenantal election.” Just look at page 59 of Federal Vision and show me where it makes the distinction between ordo salutis justification, for instance, and “covenantal justification.” Where in the Bible does it ever say that we can lose “any” definition of justification????
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:35 pm
“The FV *never* qualifies which sense of justification, sanctification, union with Christ, etc. they mean when they say that all the benefits of union with Christ accrue to the believer.”
This kind of reasoing would require the writer of Hebrews to be more careful in the way he’s throwing around the word “sanctified.” Why didn’t he make the qualifications you demand? Is he being sloppy? Heretical?
Perhaps you’ll allow us to talk about the Hebrews verse for a while, rather than switching to justification.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I would also encourage you, Lane, to lose the sarcasm. Let’s discuss this stuff like men, instead of third graders.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Concerning your first point, I don’t think Wilkins would deny he believes a person can be in a saving union with Christ (the vine and branches) and then be cut-off and lose their salvation. What I can’t get around is their assertion is that in a final decretal sense the person was never to be saved in the first place. Doesn’t this mirror an Ariminian view of salvation and suggest that Christ losses some for whom He died?
hello said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Baggins,
For some reason, reading your article reminds me of what Chesterton said: “The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head the splits.”
Orthodoxy, p.22.
markhorne said,
November 30, 2006 at 1:56 pm
1. Your assertions about “FV” are false.
2. If your assertions were true they would not entail that “FV” is heretical.
3. Wilkins, like me, and everyone else, believes and consistently preaches every petal of Tulip and is a convinced monergistist who believes God unconditionally foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. If you’re not willing to stipulate this up front, then I have no reason to trust anything you say.
markhorne said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Ugh. Except there is no such thins as a “monergistist.” Monergist Sorry for the stutter.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Mark, the reason I’m not willing to stipulate this up front is that not every FV proponent *consistently* believes in TULIP. It doesn’t matter whether Steve says so on his church’s website, which I have read many times. His writings are not consistent with it. You may be consistent, Mark, on TULIP, but Steve, at least, is not. Mark, saying so doesn’t make it so. You can hardly expect me to give any credence at all to such one-liners that have absolutely zero interaction with what I said.
BOQ But to answer what you said, the Bible does use the term “sanctify” in various ways. EOQ Todd, this wasn’t commenting on Scripture? Or that verse? Why don’t you interact with what I said, rather than with what you think I needed to say. And by the way, no sarcasm was present. I was being perfectly serious. If you think I was speaking like a third-grader (when, in fact, what I said was true), then that’s your prerogative. But this is my blog.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Mr. Hello, I do not allow anonymous comments on this blog. Please tell us your name when you comment.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:43 pm
I’m sorry Lane, but I had to laugh when Mr. “greenbaggins” told Mr. “Hello” he doesn’t allow anonymous comments.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:50 pm
It is ironic, although, if you look at my about page, you can find out my name.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 2:56 pm
“Todd, I just love the way you lose the forest for the trees.” This wasn’t sarcastic? Perfectly serious?
To the point: The writer of Hebrews says that apostate church members had been sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Right? FV guys have not invented new vocabulary. You are having a hard time accounting for the way the Bible uses its own vocabulary.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Is Calvin guilty of the same things, Lane?
“Now then it is of God’s free election that we have his Word purely preached unto us and that we have his Gospel and Sacraments. And therein we have reason to confess that he has shown himself generous to us…So then, when the Gospel is preached in a place and it has the warrants that God gives men salvation - as when we have Baptism and the Lord’s Holy Supper ministered uncorruptly - we may say it is an election of God. But yet for all that, in the meantime he holds to himself those he so wishes in order that people should not trust the outward signs except by faith and obedience, knowing that although we have been chosen to be of the Body of the Church, yet if we do not make that election to our profit, God can well enough cut us off again and reserve a final number to himself.” (Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 53, Saturday, 3 August 1555).
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:15 pm
When you say that Wilkin’s perspective on covenantal election is utterly heretical and to be abohorred, do you distinguish it in any way from the common view of Lutherans that there are those who are saved by faith in Christ, but then can apostasize from that faith and be damned, or that there is an objective justifation of everyone, which those with faith then participate in subjectively?
Do I need to abhor lutherans?
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:19 pm
“However, they inevitably confuse the one set of terms with the other, and have not distinguished at all the two different senses of justification, sanctification, redemption, etc.”
That’s totally bogus, Lane.
Evidence that 1) terms are confused 2) this confusion is inevitable 3) no distinction “at all” between the senses? Where?
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Ontological difference? Huh?
People who are saved are sinners who have received a declaration that they are righteous because of the work of Christ imputed to them. It doesn’t change their ontology. That’s the roman catholic view that you need grace infused into your soul, no?
I continue to be disgusted by the way all kinds of loosy-goosey new theology is made up out of whole cloth just to bash the FV with. (Jeff Hutchison deciding that a man under discipline gets just as much of the special presence of christ by sitting back and oberving communion as someone participating in faith, all to avoid the idea that the sacraments are efficacious!! You guys are making it up as you go along)
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:26 pm
To answer Todd first, Hebrews 10:29 is talking about the profession of faith that a future apostate makes. He claims to be sanctified by the blood of Christ. But by treating that blood as common, he thereby denies his own claim to be truly sanctified. This is not necessarily talking about a “covenantal sanctification.” The very nature of a hypocrite is someone who claims what is false. Obviously, someone claims that he has been sanctified, but he belies that claim by his treating as common what is really sacred.
Calvin is not guilty, because Calvin isn’t even beginning to say the same things that FV proponents say. Calvin isn’t saying that this “election” gives us all the benefits of being in Christ, as Wilkins says. He would certainly not say that justification comes merely by virtue of being part of the church, again as Wilkins says. He ascribes zero ordo salutis benefits to this supposed election, as Wilkins does. Not the same thing in the slightest, Todd.
Paul, which Lutheran Confession are you quoting? I’m not questioning that some Lutheran or other (or a group) has said these things. But what confession says it?
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Paul, you haven’t answered anything except by assertion about my argument about what Wilkins says on pages 57-59 of Federal Vision. Point 1. Wilkins says that the elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus (pg. 58). Point 2. He says that those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. Point 3. He says that those blessings include justification (bullet point 13 on page 59). Point 4. He says that when one breaks covenant, it can be truly said that he has turned away from grace and forfeited life, forgiveness, and salvation (pg. 61). Therefore, the conclusion is that Wilkins says one can lose justification. Try finding any definition of justification in Scripture that is “covenantal” as opposed to decretal. You’re the one with bogus arguments, Paul.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:39 pm
“Hebrews 10:29 is talking about the profession of faith that a future apostate makes. He claims to be sanctified by the blood of Christ. But by treating that blood as common, he thereby denies his own claim to be truly sanctified.”
Pure assertion, no exegesis. This passage says nothing of the kind. There is not even a hint that anyone is claiming to be sanctified. It’s not about profession. Your treatment is eisegesis. You’re twisting the Scriptures to fit your version of the system.
Here’s what it actually says: Hebrews 10:29: “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:42 pm
The text says, in effect, that this person is a hypocrite. They went on sinning deliberately after receiving a knowledge of the truth. Then it talks about witnesses in verse 28. What are the witnesses saying? Obviously something different from what the hypocrite is saying. Then there is the contrast between the hypocrite, who is eventually exposed, and the truly converted, who are temporarily exposed to public reproach (vs. 33). Actually, textually, there is good warrant for my exegesis. It’s you who want to force this text to say something that it doesn’t say.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:49 pm
The ontological distinction is between those who have received the new birth and those who have not. Regeneration means a new heart. It is separate and distinct from justification. The declarative nature of justification is a distinct, yet inseparable benefit from sanctification. This is Calvin’s duplex gratia, and is ABC Reformed theology, Paul. Don’t think I don’t know what I’m talking about. The Roman view is that the grace given in *justification* is infused. All Reformed theologians agree that grace is infused in sanctification, which has as its fountainhead regeneration. You’re clinging to straws to defend Steve Wilkins. But I guess the SJC will have the last word on that…
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:50 pm
In your view, had these apostates been sanctified by the blood of the covenant? In any sense?
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 3:51 pm
In name only.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I wonder why the writer didn’t say anything like that, then. He could have been so much more clear. He’s more confusing than Wilkins! At least we know where to lay the blame now. Not Wilkins. Not Jordan. Not even Murray.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:03 pm
He said it in the context. You haven’t answered this yet, Todd. More substance, please.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:05 pm
More seriously, this is exactly where your criticisms of the FV seem to fall flat. You can’t account for the way the Bible actually uses words. Your rules for the use of theological terms are narrower than the Bible’s. The FV might be wrong. It might even be heretical. But your criticisms are unconvnicing to the extent that you fail to take the actual language of the Bible seriously.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:08 pm
And Todd, if that is the only verse (and we can see that it is disputed), where does Steve get all the rest of these covenantal-but-not-decretal-and-therefore-losable benefits? What happened to Romans 8: 29-30? The elect and the elect ****ONLY**** receive saving benefits, according to WCF 3.6, which says this: “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.”
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:08 pm
The context does not take anything away from the way he uses the word “sanctified.” “He was sanctifed.” Not “claimed to be sanctified.” Not “sanctified in name.” You have inserted words, and not from the context.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:09 pm
It is you who are not accounting for the WCF. I explained the passage just fine. Again, you haven’t answered my contextual arguments at all. When, pray, do you plan on doing that with anything other than “that doesn’t work?”
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:09 pm
He’s a hypocrite in heb 10
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:10 pm
It’s hardly the only verse. It’s just a quickie.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:11 pm
My understanding of the context puts quotation marks around the word “sanctified.” That’s my exegesis, not inserting any words whatsoever, and paying careful attention to the context. Oh by the way, I didn’t even mention John Owen’s possibility, which is that it is Jesus who is the one sanctified. Check it out.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:12 pm
If that’s not the only verse, then please try to answer the rest of my original post, looking up the Scriptural references proving that there is such a distinction as the visible/invisible church.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Of course he’s a hypocrite. But the writer says he was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, the same blood he profand through his hyposcrisy.
“I explained the passage just fine.” I guess we can let your readers decide whether this is true.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm
No thanks, man. I’m quite happy with the way WCF talks about visible and invisible church. I was only addressing your first point.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Well, then, what about the other salvific benefits that Steve Wilkins claims for covenant-elected believers? Would you not admit that he does not clarify whether he is using the terms of “justification,” “adoption,” etc. contrary to the way in which WCF 3.6?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Of course he’s using these terms in ways that WCF does not. That is clearly obvious. But so is the Bible! Why would Wilkins have to clarify?
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Justification is *******NEVER******* used in a way different from the WCF, and I will die on this one, Todd.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:21 pm
There is ***NO*** “covenantal justification” that one can lose later on. Never does the Bible speak this way, which is thoroughly Arminian.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Getting noisy in here. Why shout? My only claim is about sanctification in Hebrews 10:29. I have a very modest aim. Just the one verse.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:28 pm
So you will refuse to interact with the justification issue? Why do you go so far to defend Steve Wilkins, when he is so obviously wrong? Just admit that he is wrong here. I would even be content with “imbalanced.”
The reason it’s getting noisy in here is because the Reformers died for this one, literally, and now it’s getting trampled on, and I, for one, will not let the Reformation heritage go without fighting for it with every ounce of my being. The Reformation blood that sanctified Steve Wilkins (according to his own claim) is being spit on by him, and treated as a common thing that is losable. Not on my watch.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Want to make a deal? Will you just admit a covenantal sanctification in Hebrews 10:29?
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Deal? What deal? Why should I compromise what I believe about the exegesis of that verse so that you can admit that SW is wrong, which is patently obvious? I think you would get the better end of that deal. Theology doesn’t work in compromise, Todd. Really, Todd you make me laugh. It’s funny. I think the real reason you won’t defend SW on the other points is quite simple: you already know that he is wrong. You are looking for a graceful way to say it, I think, that “saves face.” It is no shame, Todd, to admit that someone else is wrong (or that your opinion has changed). I have done it before. I would rejoice rather than gloat.
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:43 pm
So before we can be declared righteous by God (justification) we have to have an infusion of grace in our souls to make us qualfied to be justified? Is that what you’re saying?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:44 pm
It’s mutual then, Lane. You make me laugh.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:46 pm
No, that is not what I’m saying at all. When we are united to Christ by faith, we are *simultaneously* declared righteous *and* given a new heart in regeneration, which then leads immediately to the life-long process of sanctification. They are distinct, yet inseparable, those great watchwords of the Reformed faith. The infusion of grace has absolutely nothing to do with justification. Rather it has everything to do with regeneration and sanctification.
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I’m can’t find a traditional confession by I found this
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/mosynod/web/just-01.html#jst-5
23. By “objective” or “universal” justification one means that God has declared the whole world to be righteous for Christ’s sake and that righteousness has thus been procured for all people. It is objective because this was God’s unilateral act prior to and in no way dependent upon man’s response to it, and universal because all human beings are embraced by this verdict. God has acquired the forgiveness of sins for all people by declaring that the world for Christ’s sake has been forgiven. The acquiring of forgiveness is the pronouncement of forgiveness. (Rom. 3:24; 4:25; 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:19-21; Ap IV, 40-41; SA II, i, 1-3; FC Ep V, 5; FC SD XI, 15)
It is contrary to Scripture and the pure Gospel to teach:
That God’s acquisition and establishment of forgiveness in objective justification is a conditional verdict, depending on faith or any other human response or activity;
That it is not Biblical to speak of “objective justification.”
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Well, Todd, at least there’s something funny about this whole thing.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Well, Paul, that’s obviously wrong. But I don’t know that the orthodox Lutherans would hold to such a view.
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:48 pm
more lutheran nonsense “the lack of faith does cause damnation; i.e., without faith the redeemed sinner to whom God is reconciled does not have the righteousness of Christ or any of the benefits of His work of obedience, but is condemned by God and lost eternally.”
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Thats the LCMS from 1983
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Good grief, where did you dig up that double-speak? I can’t imagine Luther holding to such a view!
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:50 pm
“When we are united to Christ by faith, we are *simultaneously* declared righteous *and* given a new heart in regeneration.”
Faith (logically) precedes regeneration in your ordo here, Lane.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Really???
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Actually, Todd, the way I would put it is that faith and regeneration are simultaneous. The instant that God regenerates us, we become believers, we have faith. I certainly do not hold that faith precedes regeneration.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:56 pm
I just re-read the AAPC position paper. It has been greatly revised since a couple of years ago. Concerning Heb. 10:29 it reads,
“Those who “believe for a while” enjoy blessings and privileges of the covenant only for a time and only in part, since their temporary faith is not true to Christ, as evidenced by its eventual failure and lack of fruit (1 Cor. 10:1ff; Hebrews 6:4-6). By their unbelief they “trample underfoot the Son of God, count the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified an unholy thing, and do despite to the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29) and thus bring greater condemnation upon themselves.”
~ They used to say that baptized individuals receive the “all” the benefits of Christ, including regeneration, and that some of those fully and finally fall away. They seem to have toned down quite a bit from those days.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:58 pm
First you said this:
“When we are united to Christ by faith, we are *simultaneously* declared righteous *and* given a new heart in regeneration”
Then you said this:
“The instant that God regenerates us, we become believers, we have faith.”
Some might see a contradiction here.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:58 pm
What I want to know is whether Steve Wilkins has retracted any of the outrageously un-Reformed published material in the book _Federal Vision_. Because the way the AAPC statement read before is what is in the Federal Vision book, not what it says now.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I said, “When we are united to faith.” That means “at that time-point,” doesn’t it? then later I said that regeneration and faith are simultaneous. Same thing.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Besides, it’s not my theology that we are examining here, but that of the FV. Will you or won’t you admit that SW is wrong when he ascribes justification to the status which is possible to lose?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:14 pm
The FV position, if there is such a thing, on covenantal justification is an attempt to deal with the fact that sometimes Paul tells everyone in a local church that they have been justified, without qualifications or distinctions. The clear and popular example, of course, is 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
I know that you will be eager to see this kind of language as the “judgment of charity,” and you may be right. I am undecided. But I don’t think the Reformation is under threat when others want to talk about a covenantal justification of the whole congregation by means of their covenantal union with Christ. They are trying to take biblical language seriously.
The Hebrews 10:29 thing is just a clearer and more concise example of God bringing sanctification and apostasy together in one verse. Again, we’ll let your readers decide whether your reading of this passage is a reasonable one, or whether you’ve swallowed a camel or two.
But Paul is certainly not as careful with his language as you want Wilkins to be. By your standards, Paul has brought confusion and the danger of presumption into the Corinthian church by his promiscuous use of terms that are defined for us in the WCF.
As you would say, “I can’t go there.” I’ve got to stick with Paul.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:20 pm
I would go in the direction of judgment of charity. However, to say that SW is in line with the confession (again, see comment 29) is wrong. The WCF says expressly, “Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.” When verses like 1 Cor 6:11 can so easily be exegeted as a judgment of charity, why should we look for a whole other theological language set to describe it? By the way, you forgot the first part of that verse: “Such were some of you. But you were…” That changes things a bit, hey what?
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:21 pm
Todd, I agree as long as we understand the nature of Paul’s meaning and as a result qualify what we say knowing terms such as “justification” “salvation” etc. can be used differently in varying contexts. FV don’t seem to ever make these qualifications.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Here’s Calvin on 1 Cor. 6:11:
“His meaning is, that having been once justified, they must not draw down upon themselves a new condemnation — that, having been sanctified, they must not pollute themselves anew — that, having been washed, they must not disgrace themselves with new defilements, but, on the contrary, aim at purity, persevere in true holiness, and abominate their former pollutions.”
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:24 pm
“By the way, you forgot the first part of that verse: “Such were some of you. But you were…””
Nuh uh. I included it.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Lane, do you believe in a differnce between temproal justfication/ salvation and a ultimate decretal justification/ salvation? or you, Todd?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:25 pm
David: “FV don’t seem to ever make these qualifications.”
Sure they do. Look at Wilson’s presbytery exam. Do you have it?
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:27 pm
I have heard DW’s exam. I have accused him of not being a full-blooded FV’er too. He seems to equivocate a great deal.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:30 pm
It is the “some” who are then washed, sanctified, and justified. Specifically, it is the some who had been walking in sexual immorality, adultery, homosexuality, thievery, etc. in verses 9-10. It is those “some” who were changed. So the “you” referred to in verse 11 has reference to the “some” in the beginning of the verse.
David, I do not believe in such a distinction. I believe in a final present justification by faith that forever acquits us of guilt. It is faith in Christ that God uses to justify us. This justification is “privately declared” now in God’s own court-room. That same judgment will be publicly declared at the second coming. It is not a second justification, but an open declaration of what has already happened in the present. I don’t wish to get into Rom 2 at this point, so I will close it off there.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:31 pm
David, I don’t know for sure that I understand your question. I am eager to do justice to the way the Bible uses these theological words, especially the way to “applies” the benefits of union with Christ to entire congregations, while warning them against falling away in the same letter. I am very shy about any reading that seems to be explaining these “difficulties” away. This is the issue the FV guys have forced our tradition to think about, even if they don’t have all the answers right.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Wilson’s metaphor for his relationship is not blood. It’s beer. He suspects he may be FV Lite. Let me look around in Lusk’s stuff a bit.
Lane, so is your view that *all* who used to be immoral (the some) are eternally justified? How would Paul know that for sure? If I have misunderstood you, please be nice and try again.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:41 pm
When Peter speaks about Noah’s family coming through the flood and being “saved”, was that in an eternal / decretal sense, or in a temporal sense? Saved from the flood, as it were?
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Sure. Paul is not saying that everyone without exception has washing, sanctification, and justification. He is saying that if they have changed and no longer do those things, then that is *evidence* in their lives that they are washed, sanctified, justified. This is in a context of encouragement to the visible church at Corinth to live honorable lives (vs. 9’s opening question). Paul would surely not say that those in Corinth who still live in such sins are washed, sanctified, and justified. In fact, in this very letter, he will tell them to expel the immoral man, whose life does not match up to what washing, sanctification, and justification mean. My point is that Paul is not positing these blessings of everyone in the visible church.
It is important to realize (a la the fact that we cannot read the human heart) that evidence does not prove the state of affairs. It is quite possible to fake it. And I do mean “fake it.” On the one hand, no one who is justified will be continuously living in such a state as verses 9-10 describe. On the other hand, just because someone is living a holy life does not mean for sure that they are washed, sanctified, etc. This is the general principle that Paul lays down. It can in no way be forced to mean that everyone in the visible church actually has all these benefits.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm
David, how about Lusk in The Federal Vision, starting on page 284?
“Again, there is no question that God’s elect, predestined for final salvation, will persevere to the end. They cannot fall away because God is determined to keep them in the path of life.”
Special attention to the last section of his chapter. Let me know what you think.
David McCrory said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Yes Lusk sounds very confessional here. My concern arises when I wonder at what point Lusk believes that person is fully justifed. Is he fully justifed then he perseveres, or does he persevere and then Lusk believes him justified? Therein lies one of the major rubs.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:54 pm
So is Paul describing some who might be faking it as justified and washed? It seems like Paul would have to know a lot more than it is possible to know in order to use these terms in the way you’re reading them. He doesn’t say “if,” and he doesn’t use the word “evidence.” And he warns this same group about the possibility of falling away, right?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 5:56 pm
“Is he fully justifed then he perseveres, or does he persevere and then Lusk believes him justified?” I bet he would say, “Both.” But this is the way our catechism talks about judgment day: “Openly acknowledged and aquitted in the day of judgment.”
But let me look some more.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:04 pm
Here’s some more Lusk, but don’t miss the Edwards quote!
“Second, there was the issue of justification related to perseverance. How does my assurance of present justification relate to the demand of perseverance? While the Reformers argued that simple believers could find a solid basis for assurance in the means of grace, they did not open the door to an antinomian salvation.
Justification could not be severed from other aspects of God’s saving work. While the verdict of justification was grounded solely in Christ’s death and resurrection, we only share in Christ’s status if we are in him. Thus, at least some Reformed theologians insisted that our ongoing share in justification is dependent on
persevering in Christ. God brings the verdict of the future into the present in part on the supposition that we will persevere. Thus, Jonathan Edwards: “Even after conversion, the sentence of justification remains still to be passed, and the man remains in a state of probation for heaven [until his faith produces fruits of
obedience.]” He wrote that when God justifies us, he “has respect to perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith.” Edwards insisted that faith was the sole instrument of justification, but did not hesitate to speak of multiple “conditions” of justification, including obedience, good works, love, holiness, and lifelong perseverance. Edwards viewed justification as forensic, but also continual.”
This is from his lecture notes from a Moscow, ID conference. The whole thing is definitely worth reading:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/audio/christchurchjustification.pdf
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Paul is describing, in 1 Cor 6, simply what the general rule is for what happens when someone is changed by God, saved by God, washed by God. He is not pointing to the entire church and saying “You all have salvation; by the way, it’s only temporary unless you make it permanent.” Paul is saying that this is what happens when God changes someone.
Where is the Edwards quotation from? That doesn’t sound like the Edwards I know, who wrote, in volume 1 of the BoT works, pp. 622ff, a very masterful treatise on justification.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:24 pm
“Paul is saying that this is what happens when God changes someone.” But Paul didn’t write in third person, like systematic theology does. (Don’t accuse me of disparaging ST, please.) He’s writing second person plural, very common in the Bible. There’s no general rule here! He’s not writing about “someone,” he’s writing about–to!!–”the church of God that is in Corinth.”
“He is not pointing to the entire church and saying “You all have salvation;”
But he kind of is, isn’t he? He’s not making the distinctions and qualifications that you’re bringing in.
He’s not saying what you’re saying he’s saying. That’s what I’m saying.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:31 pm
The second person plural says nothing regarding this point. I could say “You all have been disobedient, and now you are obedient.” This doesn’t mean that all of them were, in fact, obedient. I’m generalizing, even using the second person plural. Doesn’t force me to redefine the terms of justification and sanctification, like you are doing. Don’t forget the qualifying phrase at the end of the verse, either. It is only in the name of Jesus that this happens, and by the Spirit of our Lord. By your argument, if he is talking to everyone, would he not include the man of chapter 5?
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:40 pm
That is a great question, one that I have thought of as I’ve been batting this around today. Here’s my answer. I dunno. It’s a great question. I don’t think it’s an easy question. He is, however, saying these things to the same people he warns about falling away in chapter 10.
1:2: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.”
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:43 pm
That brings up, in turn, the whole question about warnings in Scripture. If a farmer were to put out a sign that says, “Trespassers will be prosecuted,” what is the purpose of that sign? Is it not to insure that there will be no trespassers? In the same way, are not the warnings in Scripture God’s way of preserving the elect? No elect will ever fall away. The warnings, however, are not hypothetical. Rather, they are there both to warn the elect so that they will *not* fall, but also to up the ante for the non-elect, who, when they fall, will receive yet more condemnation.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:50 pm
I agree with post 85, Lane.
greenbaggins said,
November 30, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Okey-dokey. So, if Paul is addressing *everyone* at the Corinthian church, telling them that they are *all* justified, sanctified, etc., then what do we do with the man in chapter 5? Any further thoughts? To me it seems much more natural to interpret chapter 6 as saying that this is the general rule of what happens when you see such a drastic change.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 7:36 pm
It’s not natural to use second person plural when describing a general rule.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I believe that one of the most important sections in the FV book is pp. 279-280. Here are just a few lines, but I’d challenge anyone who has it to read it through.
“The problem is not so much with the application of logic or the theological formulations. The problem is with the way Scripture is being read and applied. The Bible is not a revealed “system” of truth from which conclusions are to be deduced. Rather, it is a pastoral/liturgical/covenantal book.”
“The promises about perseverance are not mainly theological axioms from which conclusions are to be deduced; rather, they are promises to be believed and claimed by faith. Scripture is not given first and foremost to provide logical exercises. It is given to feed and nourish our faith. We don’t deduce perseverance from a set of premises; we trust God in Christ to provide it.”
“The Scriptural warnings concerning apostasy are not there primarily to be theologically analyzed and worked into a dogmatic system; they are there to be heeded and observed, lest we perish.”
“The passage’s native habitat is the worshiping community; we must allow it to do its work there, rather than polishing off its rough edges in order to fit it into a dogmatic edifice we are busily constructing.”
“Is Scripture a Father’s love letter (warnings included: “Do not run away from home!”
to his children? Or is it a professor’s lecture notes to his students? Those are really the questions at the heart of this whole controversy.”
Not general rules, but promises and proclamations and warnings.
Todd said,
November 30, 2006 at 8:55 pm
The first Edwards quote seems to be part of Miscellany 847. The second comes, I believe, from the masterful work you mention.
“So although the sinner is actually and finally justified on the first acts of faith, yet the perseverance of faith even then comes into consideration as one thing on which the fitness of acceptance to life depends. God, in the act of justification which is passed on a sinner’s first believing, has respect to the perseverance, as being virtually contained in that first act of faith….God has respect to the believer’s continuance in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by divine establishment it shall follow; and being by divine constitution connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended….And that it is so, that God in the act of final justification which He passes at the sinner’s conversion has respect to perseverance in faith and future acts of faith, as being virtually implied in the first act, is further manifest by this: that in a sinner’s justification, at his conversion, there is virtually contained forgiveness as to eternal and deserved punishment not only of all past sins, but also of all future infirmities and acts of sin that the sinner shall be guilty of. And this is because that first justification is decisive and final. And yet pardon, in the order of nature, properly follows the crime, and also follows those acts of repentance and faith that respect the crime pardoned, as is manifest from both reason [i.e., it is rational] and Scripture.”
I found this here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/CramptonGaryJustification.htm#_ftn72
If it doesn’t sound like the Edwards you know…
pduggie said,
November 30, 2006 at 10:09 pm
“This justification is “privately declared” now in God’s own court-room.”
What does that even mean? private declaration is an oxymoron. What is the public event that declares it to the sinner, I wonder?
onlooker said,
December 1, 2006 at 8:49 am
I don’t know. I used to not respect the FV at all!! But Todd’s arguments are starting to really make sense to me. Although I used to appreciate exactly what Lane is saying, I think I am finally seeing things through FV eyes. I think I am understanding it better. I appreciate the dialogue. Lane, thanks for your input. However, I really think what Todd is saying lines up with the text of Scripture in an interesting (yet different!) way than I am used to but I think it does justice to the text better than what anti-FVs have said. Guys, thanks for the dialogue. I have learned alot!!!
Xon said,
December 1, 2006 at 8:50 am
Might I ask, Lane, how exactly you are using the word “heretical”? Do you mean “outside the pale of legitimate Christian confession”, or just “outside the pale of legitimate Presbyterian confession”? Or something else? Similarly for your claim that FV is “utterly to be abhorred”: abhorred by who, and how? Abhorred in the way that Arianism is to be abhorred by all orthodox (Nicean) Christians? Or ‘abhorred’ in the way that consubstantiation is to be abhorred by Presbyterians? (And ARE Presbyterians supposed to go so far as abhorring consubstantiation?) Or something else?
Xon said,
December 1, 2006 at 9:17 am
Also, I think your claims about the visible/invisible church distinction pretty clearly mis-read FV intentions. FVers do not deny that there are two “different” churches, in some sense. As you would say, not all who currently profess Christ (the “visible” church) are among those who will be found to be elect at the last day (the “invisible” church). FVers agree with this! Afterall, what does it mean to think that you can fall away from the covenant if not that there are some folks who are currently in covenant with God, but who still are not elect? If anything, the FVers could be interpreted as holding to an even more robust distinction between the visible and invisible church than their opponents: for they actually see the “visible church” as having characteristics that belong to a church. The visible church is not simply those who “profess the name of Christ”, though it includes that profession. It also includes the sorts of things that characterize communities united together under a common cause. There is a shared identity, a shared mission in which all the members somehow take part (even if they are saboteurs); there are promises and blessings and warnings and curses that everyone comes and hears and enjoys together. The visible church is, in other words, an actual church, and not just a bunch of people who claim to assent to some particular propositions but who really are ‘hypocrites’.
Of course, opponents disagree with the FV characterization of some people as being in “covenant” with God, since the opponents think that under the new covenant God only brings in those whom He intends to hold on to forever. So all this leaves for the damned members of First Presbyterian Church is no covenant at all (apart from the Noahic one), and some sort of mistaken (or disingenuous) claim to believe in Christ. But really they don’t, not in any way, because the only people who really ever believe in any sense are the elect. But, again, notice how paltry of a distinction these opponents now have. Arguably they have just gutted any real significance to the traditional distinction between the “visible” and “invisible” churches, for there is really only one church (worthy of the name) in their view–the invisible one made up of those elected to eternal life. The “visible church” is not a group of people who have been brought into some sort of real covenant community from which they will later fall away (all through God’s sovereign direction, of course), but is just a bunch of people who come to a building and say certain words about Jesus, the cross, supralapsarianism, etc. Words it turns out they don’t even “mean”. The “visible church”, on this anti-FV understanding, is nothing more than the “apparent church”, i.e., people who “look” from the outside like they’re in, but who aren’t really in the church at all. There is, it turns out, only one legitimate sense of “church.” And thus we have switched sides of the net, with the FVers actually taking the historical distinction between the two churches more seriously than their opponents do. Or so it might be argued, anyway.
But the FVers also think there are better ways to describe this relationship than with words like “visible” and “invisible.” So they tend to choose different words to describe the difference between those who are currently in covenant with God through Christ in some sense, but are not elected unto eternal life, and those who are elected utno eternal life. They describe this distinction a bit differently, hoping to more accurately reflect what the Scriptures say about it. Their new descriptions may be incorrect, of course. But saying that they are “heretical” because they “deny” the distinction, full stop, is simply not the case.
greenbaggins said,
December 1, 2006 at 12:05 pm
To answer Todd first: your argument about the second-person will not hold up. Couldn’t a teacher say in class, “Now, students, when you do X, Y happens.” Is that not stating a general rule in the second person? You’ve got quite the narrow view of language if you think that Paul could not have stated a general rule in second person. It’s a letter, for crying out loud! Letters are usually phrased in the second person, in my experience.
I have answered the ridiculous FV quote in my new post.
Is not the Edwards quote just a little off topic? He does not in any way establish a “covenantal justification” as opposed to “decretal justification.”
To Paul, it is private in the sense that it is an “in” declaration. The world does not know about it. Indeed, they even scoff at it. The only ones who know are the cloud of witnesses in Heb 12, and the very court of God. That’s what I mean. What happens on judgment day is that the whole world hears about our justification and is forced to acknowledge it.
To Xon, by “heretical” I mean that the system of the FV strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith. It is clearly outside the bounds of the WCF, and therefore ought to be shunned by anyone who holds to the WS.
BOQ FVers do not deny that there are two “different” churches, in some sense. EOQ It is you who are plainly misinterpreting the FV. They deny the distinction between the visible and invisible church. I am really dumbfounded that you could even assert this, when it is all over their writings. In their system, there is no differentiation at all in the church until apostasy happens. How else could they argue for paedo-communion? Doug Wilson’s article rejecting the distinction of “visible/invisible” really ought to be enough to convince you of this point. This can also be seen in how the FV interprets the Vine and the branches passage in John 15. There is no difference among the branches. They all have the sap. “The distinction of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ union seems to be invented and is not in the text” (Wilkins, _Federal Vision_, pg. 63).
David McCrory said,
December 1, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Hey! Leave paedocommunion out of this!
greenbaggins said,
December 1, 2006 at 12:17 pm
David, I do recognize paedo-communion as a separable issue. However, the basis for it is an undifferentiated church, is it not?
David McCrory said,
December 1, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Absolutely not. Just in the way infant baptist doesn’t imply an undifferentiated church, paedocommunion wouldn’t either (at least to my thinking, some my try to use this methodology). If a person who has been baptized, given communion, and grown up in the church apotasizes from the church, they are to be discplined up to and including ex-communication like any one else would. What makes you think otherwise?
Todd said,
December 1, 2006 at 1:51 pm
“Couldn’t a teacher say in class, “Now, students, when you do X, Y happens.” Is that not stating a general rule in the second person?”
Yes it is, but it has nothing in common with the the syntax of 1 Corinthians 6:11. You’re still straining, man.
Yeah, the Edwards quote was just follow up with David.
“It’s a letter, for crying out loud!” Exactly.
Todd said,
December 1, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Here’s one more paragraph from Lusk, still thinking about David’s question about whether the FV guys make enough qualifications.
Lusk writes, “As a confessional Presbyterian, I am constrained to argue that there is some kind of qualitative distinction between persevering faith and temporary faith. To say we don’t know what kind of faith/relationship the child has towards God is not a problem. We have to say the same thing in the case of adults.”Common operations of the Spirit” is the category we’re given in the Westminsterian tradition for explaining this distinction. Is it perfect? No. But it’s serviceable. It makes the key point. If a covenant child grows up and falls away, would you say that [a] he never had any faith whatsoever; or [b] he had a faith that was less than saving faith? Since Jesus speaks of covenant children being made to ’stumble,’ I go with [b]. But I think you can see the problems with saying, “Well, because this covenant child might stumble in the future, and show himself to have only received a common operation of the Spirt, therefore we should not treat him as a believer in the present.” If we used that kind of logic, we could never baptize anyone since we lack “cardio-analytic abilities.” So, yes, the presence of faith — even if it turns out to be faith that doesn’t persevere to the end — matters. We’re creatures; we cannot have infallible knowledge of another’s faith or heart condition, much less God’s decree.”
These comments can be found here:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31417067&postID=116417702190852826
Xon said,
December 1, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Lane said to me:
“It is you who are plainly misinterpreting the FV. They deny the distinction between the visible and invisible church. I am really dumbfounded that you could even assert this, when it is all over their writings. In their system, there is no differentiation at all in the church until apostasy happens. How else could they argue for paedo-communion? Doug Wilson’s article rejecting the distinction of “visible/invisible” really ought to be enough to convince you of this point. This can also be seen in how the FV interprets the Vine and the branches passage in John 15. There is no difference among the branches. They all have the sap. “The distinction of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ union seems to be invented and is not in the text” (Wilkins, _Federal Vision_, pg. 63).”
A few comments by way of response to this, if I may.
1. Wilkins is talking about “the text” of Romans 6 in that passage. Anyone who wants to see an “external” and “internal” union with Christ in Romans 6 is doing impropre eisegesis. This does not mean that there aren’t good things about the internal/external distinction that can be found in other passages of Scripture. Again, Wilkins is doing that FV thing that seems to drive their opponents bonkers: he’s looking at the particular text of Scripture (in this case Rom. 6) and trying to take it in its own terms rather than “pre-understanding” it based on some systematic theological category which then filters his understanding of what it “really means”. This is not to say systematic theology is bad, only that biblical theology needs some room to do its thing as well.
2. You claim that for FVers there is “no differentiation at all in the church until apostasy happens.” You cite Wilson as a locus classicus for this. We seem to be at an impasse here of he said/he said. I don’t know what else to do but drop a couple of quotations. So here they are.
(2a) “When a man falls away from the faith, there is clearly a sense in which he was never truly in the faith. But when a man falls away from the faith, in some sense he has to have been in the faith in order to fall away from it.” (Doug Wilson, AA Theology: Pros and Cons, 231, pre-published version)
(2b) “Wilson states, “I agree completely that the grace experienced by the apostate and the persevering grace experienced by the elect differ, and that they differ in the hearts of those concerned.”[cites Pros and Cons, 226] And while Wilson does not necessarily disagree with speaking about a visible and invisible dimension to the church, he is more comfortable to speak about a historical and eschatological church.[cites Federal Vision, 263-9] This is because the New Testament church is one church. (Eph. 4) In her history, many will become a part of her that will later be broken off for unbelief. Perhaps a helpful way of expressing this point is that the “church” is not synonymous with the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. The AAPC summary statement says that the difference between those who persevere and those who do not is not to be reduced to the time of their duration in the covenant.[cites AAPC summary statement as contained in MVP report] Indeed, employing this very point, it goes on to say, “God does work ‘effectually’ in those whom he has predestined to eternal life so that they do not fall away in unbelief. In this sense, we may say that there are things that are true of the ‘elect’ that are never true of the reprobate. But these distinctions…are impossible to recognize at the beginnings of one’s Christian experience within the visible church.”[cites same as previous] While the distinction is not as precise as the traditional one, it would be incorrect to say that there is no distinction. I might further remind the reader of the distinction between “salvation” as a conditional relationship and “salvation” as an enjoyed benefit (only for the elect), as discussed above.”
(Joseph Minnich, “Within the bounds of Orthodoxy? An Examination of the Federal Vision Controversy,” http://www.federal-vision.com/minich.html)
3. The FV interpretation of John 15 is indeed, as you say, that all branches, including those that later get cut out, “have the sap.” (By the way, do you deny this? How else can we sensibly read John 15?) This passage seems to apply more to your first criticism about “ontological” differences between elect and reprobate within the Church than to the visible-invisible church distinction, but that’s okay. These are clearly closely related anyway. Your two criticisms fit together very well, but so does the FV response.
Yes, FVers say that both rep and elect “have the sap.” But this does not mean that there is NO significant difference between them. The FVers seem to claim that the differences between the elect and reprobate members of the Church are the kinds of differences that only come out diachronically. They are impossible to discern at the “front end”, i.e., when both initially enter the Church. But the fact that they are only revealed in time does not mean that time is the nature of the difference. It does not mean, in other words, that the differences which only reveal themselves through time are not there initially. See the quotes up above in 2b. There is a difference b/w elect and reprobate, and that difference is not merely one of duration. FVers say this.
4. Finally, I would simply re-iterate that your insistence that we have a “differentiated” church sounds a bit odd, given that you actually do not believe that reprobates are truly ‘in’ the Church at all. On this reading, you are the one who fails to differentiate the Church, seeing it as one pure unblemished bride of Christ from start to finish in which certain hypocrites hide out for a time but never really “get it” in any meaningful way. The “visible church” on your presentation is not really a church at all, but only a thing that “appears to us churchily” (if I might use silly language from analytic philosophy). It appears that way, but it isn’t really what it appears to be. Am I misunderstanding your position here?
——-
Finally, as to your use of heretical, Lane, you say this:
“by “heretical” I mean that the system of the FV strikes at the very heart of the Christian faith. It is clearly outside the bounds of the WCF, and therefore ought to be shunned by anyone who holds to the WS”
So anyone who believes differently than the WCF (assuming you are right that FV is outside that confessional boundary) is “striking at the very heart of the Christian faith”? And they should be shunned? Perhaps you only mean they should be shunned within the Westminster denoms, i.e., they shouldn’t be allowed to minister within those denoms. But this hardly sounds like “shunning”, typically conceived. I mean, would you refuse to take communion with them? Or to even call them a brother in Christ? If you don’t mean to be this harsh, then why do you say that they “strike at the very heart” of Christian faith? If, on the other hand, you do mean to be this harsh in your judgment of anyone who believes differently than WS, then how can you avoid the charge of being a sectarian (the bad kind)? How does your reasoning not also apply to Lutherans, evangelical Wesleyans, Baptists, and others whose beliefs do not line up properly with the WCF?
greenbaggins said,
December 2, 2006 at 11:08 am
Xon, in reply to point 1. I don’t know which copy of _Federal Vision_ you are reading, but my quotation comes from his discussion of John 15. The third full paragraph on page 62 is where he begins his discussion of John 15. He doesn’t even mention Romans 6 on page 63. In fact, Romans 6 isn’t even in the context for pages on either side of the quotation.
BOQ This is not to say systematic theology is bad, only that biblical theology needs some room to do its thing as well. EOQ What this really means is that ST should have absolutely no bearing on BT, that BT should have no shackles on it. You will never convince me of this one, Xon. I reject it utterly.
Point 2. The quote from 2a just proves my point. He says that there is some sense in which he was in the faith in order to ahve fallen away from it. My point exactly. I argue that such people never had *any* saving faith whatsoever.
BOQ Perhaps a helpful way of expressing this point is that the “church” is not synonymous with the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. EOQ The problem with this quotation of Joseph Minich, is, that is does not take into account the Scriptural passages that argue for the invisible church as a legitimate definition. See the Scriptures referenced in the second bullet point in the original post. The problem with the argumentation seems to go something like this: we cannot know who the elect are. Rather we can only know who are in covenant with God. Therefore, when defining the church, we can only define what we see. the problem with this (a la the verses cited in the original post) is that *God* defines the church, not us. God has defined the church two ways. One, as has been frequently noted by now, includes elect and those who will eventually fall away. The other equally important definition, is of those who are elect only. It does not matter that we cannot see who the elect are and who they are not. This is one way in which we are to think of the church. No one has answered my historical points about the Reformation in this regard, nor has anyone looked into those passages. As long as those passages remain undealt with, the FV position has insuperable obstacles.
Point 3, regarding John 15. This should really have its own post. I will post on it later.
BOQ you actually do not believe that reprobates are truly ‘in’ the Church at all. EOQ This is a total caricature of my position, and not what I said at all. Did you read my post? I said that there are two ways of defining the church. One is in a way that includes reprobates. They are part of the church in that sense. They are not part of the church, when considered in the other way, namely, of election.
Lastly, regarding heresy. I carefully differentiated between two kinds of heresy. One is that heresy that merely differs from the WCF, but doesn’t strike at the heart of the Christian faith. I would put Baptists in this camp. They are brothers, though they could not minister in a PCA church. The other kind of heresy strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. This is where I put Open Theism, Arianism, true Arminianism (as opposed to inconsistent Arminianism, which can be Christian), and this is also where I put the Federal Vision. To be more specific, this is where I would put certain members of the FV, since not all are as bad as some others.
It Lives! « Presbyterian & Reformed said,
December 2, 2006 at 12:05 pm
[...] Over at GreenBaggins, Lane has written a little on the Federal Vision movement. Much commentary ensues. He follows with a second post and it seems there may be yet more to come. I enjoy Lane’s perspective. [...]
John said,
December 2, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Xon writes: “The FV interpretation of John 15 is indeed, as you say, that all branches, including those that later get cut out, ‘have the sap.’”
I have to point out that
(1) Not everyone associated with the so-called “FV” would talk about all the branches having the sap. I recall that phrase being used by only one person, and I have never used it myself.
(2) Furthermore, there is NO “FV” interpretation of anything. There are various interpretations by men who spoke at the AAPCs in 2002 and 2003, or were involved in the colloquium in August 2003, or have been in conversation with them. There might even be an interpretation of a passage which all these people have in common. But there is no official “FV interpretation” of anything.
Xon said,
December 2, 2006 at 5:09 pm
I agree with that entirely, John. It was entirely careless of me to speak as though that was “the” FV perspective. Thank you for the correction!
Xon said,
December 2, 2006 at 11:27 pm
“Xon, in reply to point 1. I don’t know which copy of _Federal Vision_ you are reading, but my quotation comes from his discussion of John 15. The third full paragraph on page 62 is where he begins his discussion of John 15. He doesn’t even mention Romans 6 on page 63. In fact, Romans 6 isn’t even in the context for pages on either side of the quotation.”
Oops, yeah you got me there. I was mixed up about which passage he was discussing there. Mea culpa! But my point is simply that he was referring to a particular passage when he made those comments, and that your inference from his statement there to his denial of any distinction between elect and non-elect covenant members is faulty. He is not denying that, or at least that your argument from that passage of the FV book is insufficient to show that he has done so.
“BOQ This is not to say systematic theology is bad, only that biblical theology needs some room to do its thing as well. EOQ What this really means is that ST should have absolutely no bearing on BT, that BT should have no shackles on it. You will never convince me of this one, Xon. I reject it utterly.”
This isn’t what my statement “really means” at all. How does “some room” entail “never the twain shall meet?” For the sake of space, I’ll just say I agree with Reverend Barach’s statement in another thread about the importance of both ST and BT and their necessay inter-relationship.
“Point 2. The quote from 2a just proves my point. He says that there is some sense in which he was in the faith in order to ahve fallen away from it. My point exactly. I argue that such people never had *any* saving faith whatsoever.”
The primary point I was making with that quotation from Wilson is that he does acknowledge that there is a difference between the visible/invisible church, or between elect-unto-eternal-life and non-elect-unto-eternal-life members of the covenant. In some sense they were never in, just like you would say.
But there is a difference between you, because you think that there is no sense in which they were ever in, while Wilson thinks that there is a sense in which they were. Okay, this is a disagreement between you, but it does not amount to heresy on Wilson’s part according to your original charge. You had claimed that FVers allow for “no differentiation at all in the church until apostasy happens.” But clearly Wilson does allow for some differentiation (per the quote in 2a). Now you say that this “just proves your point,” because Wilson doesn’t make a complete differentiation between them, but that wasn’t your point initially. Now you apparently want an absolute distinction between elect-to-salvation and non-elect-to-salvation members of the church, while Wilson sees both distinction and similarity between them. The problem is that you are ‘moving the goalposts’ on Wilson here, and I hope you can see that.
“The problem with this quotation of Joseph Minich, is, that is does not take into account the Scriptural passages that argue for the invisible church as a legitimate definition. … the problem with this (a la the verses cited in the original post) is that *God* defines the church, not us. God has defined the church two ways. One, as has been frequently noted by now, includes elect and those who will eventually fall away. The other equally important definition, is of those who are elect only. It does not matter that we cannot see who the elect are and who they are not. This is one way in which we are to think of the church. No one has answered my historical points about the Reformation in this regard, nor has anyone looked into those passages. As long as those passages remain undealt with, the FV position has insuperable obstacles.”
See, and now you are back to speaking as though FVers make no distinction at all. You claim that Scripture gives us two different ways of talking about the church. That we should think of the church as including “elect and those who will eventually fall away.” Great, but how is this a rebuttal to the actual position taken by (most? all?) FVers? This is also what they say, as I (and Minnich) understand them: isn’t it one of their main points that the church is “objective” and thus contains all those who have “objectively” been baptised? But this includes non-elect-to-salvation as well as elect-to-salvation, since not all who are baptised are elect-to-salvation.
In other words, you have to pick one way to go here and stick with it. Either FVers do not make a distinction “at all,” in which case you are simply incorrect and quotes have already been provided demonstrating this. Or, they are wrong because, while they make a distinction, they also allow for similarity, and this you (and your understanding of orthodox Reformed theology) cannot abide. But, if this latter is your real complaint, then it has been only implicit up until now, and is not consistent with the way you have generally been phrasing your charge of heresy. This is bad for your case that FVers are heretics, all the more so since it is now you who is staking orthodoxy upon an “absolute” position of difference between elect and non-elect covenant members, a position which you have not demonstrated with evidence in this conversation (and a position which, below, it appears you don’t actually even hold). And they can’t be heretics until you provide such evidence: to wit, why is it heretical to hold that there is “some sense” in which elect-to-salvation and non-elect-to-salvation covenant members were both “in” union with Christ? Here I refer for added support to my comments #17 and #25 in the second “Why is FV Heresy?” thread. (Perhaps we should just transfer the entire conversation to one convenient place? It’s your blog, so you tell me what you want to do in this regard.)
On either interpretation, your charges that FV is heretical have not yet been shown to stick.
“BOQ you actually do not believe that reprobates are truly ‘in’ the Church at all. EOQ This is a total caricature of my position, and not what I said at all. Did you read my post? I said that there are two ways of defining the church. One is in a way that includes reprobates. They are part of the church in that sense. They are not part of the church, when considered in the other way, namely, of election.”
As to the claim that reprobates are “part of the church in that sense”, I have to ask “What sense?” You haven’t stipulated, have you? The “sense” you are talking about is the “visible” sense of the church–the church in that sense includes reprobates. Okay, but how does it “include” them? Yes, you think of the “visible church” as including reprobates, but it seems it only includes them in the sense that there is a church building where religious stuff happens and there happen to be some hypocrites who hang out there for a time. My argument was that this could be construed (I made this clearer in earlier comments in this thread, but not as clear in my most recent) as not holding the “visible church” to be a “church” at all.
Now, if this is a misrepresentation of your position, then I apologize. I am risking caricature here. But I will be most happy to have you set me straight, and point out particular ways in which the reprobate are “included” in the visible church beyond my description above. Because, as soon as you start to lay out those ways, you will be granting some kind of deeper “similarity” between elect and non-elect members of the covenant. Just like FVers such as Wilson do! (Hence my claim above that you yourself do not really seem to want to hold to the more “absolute” difference position which you are now claiming is a standard of orthodoxy.)
“They are not part of the church, when considered in the other way, namely, of election.” Well, when “election” is defined in the typical Reformed sense of “elect-to-eternal-life”, then of course the reprobate are not part of the church in this sense. And no FVer that I have ever read would deny this.
Sheesh, sorry to be so long. Blessings.
markhorne said,
December 4, 2006 at 10:35 am
How about this:
Are baptized reprobates in the visible church by an operation of the Spirit in common with the operation of the Spirit that brings baptized elect into the visible church?
David McCrory said,
December 4, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Mr. Horne,
WCF X. IV. I think deals with this issue when it says,
“Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.”
~ So that here the Confession seems to suggest there are operations of the Spirit common to all men, and reprobates as well as the elect are called ( a general call) but that the reprobate remains uneffectually called inwardly by the regenerating work of the Spirit.
Todd said,
December 4, 2006 at 1:07 pm
David,
But Mark’s question is about non-elect members of the visible church in particular.
David McCrory said,
December 4, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Todd,
This section of the Confession begins, “Others, not elected…” Again, it suggest there are those who may be called into the visible church through “common operations of the Spirit” yet “never truly come to Christ.” These are those who would certainly appear, for a season, to demonstrate a desire for true religion, yet would in the end fully and finally fall away.
Does this not address non-elect members?
Todd said,
December 4, 2006 at 2:12 pm
It doesn’t seem to address non-elect church members in particular. Any unbeliever who hears the gospel is “called by the ministry of the Word.” But what is unique to the situation/experience for baptized covenant members?
Marks question is a great one. Maybe I can rephrase it:
The elect are brought into the visible church through the operation of the Spirit? Are the non-elect brought into the visible church through that same act of the Spirit?
David McCrory said,
December 4, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Yes, your rephrasing cla